Gartika Pandu B, 2014 ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia |
repository.upi.edu |
perpustakaan.upi.edu
researcher and participants uttered. The interview was later transcribed and translated into English. The data from interview will be presented and
discussed in Chapter 4.
3.5 Data Analysis
This section discussed the data analysis of this study. The analysis contained three data collection techniques used: classroom observation and interview. The
following part explains the analysis of each collected data.
3.5.1 Analyzing the Data from Video Recording
The process of analysis started from the transcribing the data gained through video recording. The transcription was focused on oral production.
Lesson opening and closing were also included in transcription since on the opening and closing the teacher gave the opportunity for the students to speak
up. The strategy of transcribing video
recording was adapted from Ellis’s transcription system In Nunan and Bailey, 2009 below:
1. Teacher and students are designated by initials. T = Teacher, S=
students, Ss= more than one students. 2.
Pause is indicated in parentheses with one or more periods. For instance . indicates pause of second or shorter.
3. XXX is used to indicate speech that could not be deciphered.
4. Phonetic transcription is used when the students’ pronunciation is
markedly different from the teacher’s pronunciation and also when it was not possible to identify the English word the students were using.
5. ... Indicates an incomplete utterance.
6. Italics is used to distinguished L1 and L2 utterance
Gartika Pandu B, 2014 ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia |
repository.upi.edu |
perpustakaan.upi.edu
After the transcription process was finished, the data were coded and classified based on the categorization of oral corrective feedback from Lyster
and Ranta 1999, Lyster and Panova 2002, and Ellis 2009. There were eight types of corrective feedback namely recast, explicit correction,
elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, repetition, translation, and paralinguistic sign.
Afterward, the categorization of students’ proficiency levels was done. As previously mentioned, the categorization of students’ proficiency levels was
based on the Rost’s 2005 speaking rubric which was scored by the teacher,
in which there were 11 students categorized as low achievers, 21 students as middle achievers, and 4 students as high achievers.
The categorization of teacher’s oral corrective feedback was then distributed based on students’ proficiency levels. For instance, which types of
corrective feedback was given to low, mid, and high proficiency students. The number and percentage of teacher’s oral corrective feedback were put in
the table as shown below:
Table 3.1
Categorization of Corrective Feedback based on Lyster and Ranta 1997, Lyster and Panova 2002, and Ellis 2009
Types of oral corrective feedback
Students’ proficiency levels Low
Mid High
No No
No
Recast Explicit correction
Elicitation Metalingustic feedback
Gartika Pandu B, 2014 ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia |
repository.upi.edu |
perpustakaan.upi.edu
The result of categorizing and distribution will be discussed in Chapter 4. The discussion will be divided into eight parts, based on the types of
corrective feedback. In the discussion, the researcher will describe the types of oral corrective feedback given by the teacher by explaining the
distribution, providing the example, describing the context, and interpreting their occurrences to answer the first research question of the study.
To investigate the types of corrective feedback contribute to more uptake, the data were coded and classified based on the categorization of uptake from
Lyster and Ranta 1997. There were two types of uptake, namely repair and need repair. Repair consisted of four types of uptake, which are repetition,
incorporation, self- and peer-correction. Meanwhile, need repair consisted of six forms of uptake, which are acknowledgement, same error, different error,
partial error, off target, and hesitation. The number and percentage of uptake in each student’s proficiency level were put in the Table as can be seen
below:
Table 3.2 Categorization of Uptake by Lyster and Ranta 1997
Clarification request Repetition
Translation Paralinguistic signal
Total
Types of Corrective
Feedback UPTAKE
Total Uptake
NO UPTAKE
Repair Need Repair
R I
SC PC
AC SE
DE OT
H PR
Recast Explicit
correction Elicitation
Gartika Pandu B, 2014 ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia |
repository.upi.edu |
perpustakaan.upi.edu
R=repetition; I=incorporation; SC= sefl-corretion; PR=peer correction; AC=acknowledgement; SE= same error; DE= different error; OT =off target; H=hesitation; PR=partial correction
The result of categorizing and distribution will be discussed in Chapter 4. The discussion will be divided into three parts, based on
the students’ proficiency levels. In the discussion, the researcher will describe the
percentage of uptake and interpreted their occurrences to answer the second research question of the study.
3.5.2 Analyzing the Data from Interview
